Streeter v. Harris et al
Filing
17
ORDER that the Clerk of Court issue redacted Summonses for Defts Charles Rivers and Katelyn Guild. The Clerk will send the redacted Summonses, a copy of this Order, the 1 Complaint and 16 Sealed Document, to the U.S. Marsh als Service. The U.S. Marshal shall use reasonable efforts to locate and obtain service on Defts Charles Rivers and Katelyn Guild in accordance with Rule 4. The Clerk is instructed to substitute the true full names of FNU Rivers as Charles Rivers, FNU Guild as Katelyn Guild, and FNU Harris as Ronald Harris. Signed by Chief Judge Martin Reidinger on 1/16/2023. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (ejb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:22-cv-00511-MR
FAITH SHERRIE STREETER,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
FNU HARRIS, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________ )
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on its own motion.
On January 9, 2023, the NCDPS filed a document under seal indicating
it was unable to procure a waiver of service for Defendant FNU Rivers and
Defendant FNU Guild for the reasons stated in that document. [Doc. 16].
The sealed document provides the last known addresses for these
Defendants, as well as these Defendants’ true full names, which the Court
will direct the Clerk to substitute in the docket in this matter.1
Generally, a plaintiff is responsible for effectuating service on each
named Defendant within the time frame set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), and
failure to do so renders the action subject to dismissal. However, if an
The Court will also instruct the Clerk to substitute the true full name of Defendant FNU
Harris as provided in the recently filed Waiver of Service. [See Doc. 15].
1
Case 3:22-cv-00511-MR Document 17 Filed 01/18/23 Page 1 of 3
incarcerated plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis provides the Marshals
Service sufficient information to identify the defendant, the Marshals
Service’s failure to complete service will constitute good cause under Rule
4(m) if the defendant could have been located with reasonable effort. See
Graham v. Satkoski, 51 F.3d 710, 713 (7th Cir. 1995); Greene v. Holloway,
No. 99-7380, 2000 WL 296314, at *1 (4th Cir. Mar. 22, 2000) (where the
district court dismissed a defendant in a Section 1983 action based on the
prisoner’s failure to provide an address for service on a defendant who no
longer worked at the sheriff’s office, remanding so the district court could
“evaluate whether the marshals could have served [Defendant] with
reasonable effort”).
Here, despite requests for waivers of service having been submitted to
the NCDPS, no waivers from Defendants Rivers or Guild were obtained. As
such, it does not appear that these Defendants actually ever received service
of process. With the additional information supplied for service on these
Defendants, the U.S. Marshal is hereby ordered to use reasonable efforts to
locate and obtain service on these Defendants in accordance with Rule 4.
To that end, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to provide a copy of
Docket No. 16 to the U.S. Marshal for its eyes only for the sole purpose of
serving Defendants Rivers and Guild.
Case 3:22-cv-00511-MR Document 17 Filed 01/18/23 Page 2 of 3
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Clerk of Court issue
redacted Summonses for Defendants Charles Rivers and Katelyn Guild.
The Clerk will send the redacted Summonses, a copy of this Order, the
Complaint [Doc. 1], and Docket No. 16 to the U.S. Marshals Service.
The U.S. Marshal shall use reasonable efforts to locate and obtain
service
on
Defendants
Charles
Rivers
and
Katelyn
Guild
in
accordance with Rule 4.
The Clerk is respectfully instructed to substitute the true full names of
FNU Rivers as Charles Rivers, FNU Guild as Katelyn Guild, and FNU
Harris as Ronald Harris.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: January 16, 2023
Case 3:22-cv-00511-MR Document 17 Filed 01/18/23 Page 3 of 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?